and use;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip again
I like the proposed tooltips. They look better and less
intrusive now.
Will the new tooltip stay as it is now, or will it become
optional?
Andrei
') suggestions before
applying any modification
Peppe
2015-03-26 23:49 GMT+01:00 sstein sst...@geo.uzh.ch:
looks good to me too :)
-- Originalnachricht --
*Von: *Andrei Nacu
*Datum: *26.03.2015 13:14
*An: *OpenJump develop and use;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip
mailto:sst...@geo.uzh.ch:
looks good to me too :)
-- Originalnachricht --
*Von: *Andrei Nacu
*Datum: *26.03.2015 13:14
*An: *OpenJump develop and use;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip again
;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip again
I like the proposed tooltips. They look better and less
intrusive now.
Will the new tooltip stay as it is now, or will it become
optional?
Andrei
+01:00 sstein sst...@geo.uzh.ch:
looks good to me too :)
-- Originalnachricht --
*Von: *Andrei Nacu
*Datum: *26.03.2015 13:14
*An: *OpenJump develop and use;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip again
I like the proposed tooltips. They look better and less intrusive now
modification
Peppe
2015-03-26 23:49 GMT+01:00 sstein sst...@geo.uzh.ch:
looks good to me too :)
-- Originalnachricht --
*Von: *Andrei Nacu
*Datum: *26.03.2015 13:14
*An: *OpenJump develop and use;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip again
I like the proposed
-26 23:49 GMT+01:00 sstein sst...@geo.uzh.ch:
looks good to me too :)
-- Originalnachricht --
*Von: *Andrei Nacu
*Datum: *26.03.2015 13:14
*An: *OpenJump develop and use;
*Betreff:*Re: [JPP-Devel] Tooltip again
I like the proposed tooltips. They look better and less
did you consider breaking long lines (most likely long path names)?
..ede
On 26.03.2015 17:35, Giuseppe Aruta wrote:
Hi all,
I attached some screenshots of a new proposal for tooltips. Before applying
changes OJ NB I would like your opinion about.
The tooltips are reduced to 3 lines, except
Hi,
I think that I agree with Michaël. I use frequently the tooltip for checking
the feature count on vector layers. From the new info items the source path
would also be frequently interesting. For the image layers source path is good
and for WMS layers the url. Url should rather be shown
On 25.03.2015 00:32, Michaël Michaud wrote:
Hey,
Sorry to insist, but today, I get some feedback from a user who tested
a fresh version of OpenJUMP, and immediately asked me why we added
this extra-large yellow tooltip on layer names.
I think it displays useful information, but it is
I added the new tooltip as I needed to check which layer (Layer.class) was
already saved as file and which was still in memory: I found that, if I was
using several tools (= creating several layers in memory), than the list
was quite long and I (the user) had only the right-click option (or
On 25.03.2015 16:23, Michaël Michaud wrote:
First of all, I fully understand your initial need to differentiate in-memory
layers from persistent layers. I also need this feature and thought that we
could achieve it using different font/color/background...
Not so easy indeed as it may be
Hi,
No need to hurry up, Peppe. Just want to discuss this point and to make
it evolve in a concerted manner.
First of all, I fully understand your initial need to differentiate
in-memory
layers from persistent layers. I also need this feature and thought that we
could achieve it using
Going back to to differentiate Layerable
The list should be:
- Layer.class
a) layers which already have a datasource
b) layers with no datasource (layers in memory)
c) layers of type a) which have been modified and not saved
d) layers of type b) which have been modified and not saved
-
Hi,
I would also prefer the tooltip to be optional. For my work (mostly small and
medium scale historical, physical and political maps) the tooltip is not really
necessary. If I want to check the number of items in a layer I normally use the
Crtl+A command.
Regards,Andrei
On Wednesday,
Hi,
Using an asterisk after the layer name could be a way to go, but which
one would you mark ?
Initially, we wanted to recognize no-datasource layers, but the usual
way of using * would
suggest to include also layers with datasource and unsaved change ?
- layers without datasource
- layers
how about
- layers without datasource ** (are probably created during runtime, so there
is a probability that the user wants to save those)
- layers with datasource and unsaved change *
- layers with datasource and no unsaved change (nothing, cause all is well wrt.
to these)
..ede
On
17 matches
Mail list logo
